Questions
The maxim Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of
- evidence
- criminal law
- refusal of evidence
- vicarious liability
Under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, the opinion of an expert cannot be on the question of
- foreign Law
- science
- Indian law
- art
A lunatic who is not prevented by his lunacy from understanding the questions put to him is
- a competent witness
- not a competent witness
- not a competent witness if he has not attained the age of majority
- None of these
Which of the folllowing is correct about an accomplice?
- His evidence is irrelevant.
- He is not a competent witness.
- His evidence is relevant u/s 114 and 133 of the Evidence Act.
- None of these
Res Ipsa loquitur means
- as you sow, you reap
- guilty shall be punished
- the thing speaks for itself
- the guilty speaks lies
Under Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, evidence of judgment, order or decree can be challenged on the ground of
- fraud only
- collusion only
- incompetence of the court only
- Any of the above
In which of the following cases is an accomplice not a competent witness?
- Offences punishable with death.
- Offences punishable with hadd.
- Offences punishable with confiscation of property.
- None of these
Hostile witness is the one who
- does not tell one who
- gives statements against the opposite party
- gives statement against the party who called him as a witness
- is not desirous to tell the truth and gives testimony against the party who called him as a witness in his favour
Which of the following is not an exception to the rule against hearsay?
- Admission
- Entries in public records
- Statements contained in public documents
- None of these
What is correct in reference to dying declaration?
- It is a weaker kind of evidence.
- It cannot form basis of conviction without corrobation.
- It stands on the same footing as other types of evidence.
- It is by verbal statement only.
Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act provides presumption for
- life
- marriage
- death
- legitimacy
A dumb witness who gives his evidence by writing in open court is
- not admissible as evidence
- oral evidence
- documentary
- None of these
The case of Budhsen vs. State of U.P. AIR 1970, S.C. 1321 is related to
- identification parades
- dying declaration
- documentary evidence
- burden of proof
Who shall take the Test Identification Parade under Section 9 of Evidence Act?
- Magistrate
- Police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector
- Any person
- All of the above
Which of the following is/are relevant and may be received in evidence?
- Tape recordings
- Dog-tracking
- Narco analysis test
- All of the above